Evolution can only take us so far: In sports, technology is the future

Young athletes are quickly surpassing the old guard by embracing technology.

In recent years, golf has been taken over by a troupe of abnormally young players posting abnormally low scores.

There is always some variation in scoring at the four major golf championships, of course, and the layout of courses change from year to year, but if you look at a long-term graph the general trend is flat or down slightly.

Over the last few years, though, that trend line fell off a cliff. For example, over the last 60 or 70 years, the winner of the British Open has mostly been a few points under par (excluding Tiger Woods and a few other outliers). The last three years, however, have seen winning scores of -15, -17, and -20 under par from three different players.

Elsewhere, in major golf tournaments in the US and Europe, younger players are taking over. So far this year, PGA Tour winners include a 25-year-old, two 23-year-olds, and even a 22-year-old. If you went back 20, 30, 40 years, when winning scores were usually just a few under par, and told Jack Nicklaus, Nick Faldo, or Seve Ballesteros that young men were regularly finishing four rounds of golf with scores as low as 264, you’d be met with pure disbelief.

Zooming out a little, the contrast in other sports between the old guard and the new is even starker. In 1954, the world had just two men who could run a mile in under four minutes; today, thousands of runners are capable, including university and high school kids. In 1972, Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx bicycled 30.7 miles in an hour; in 1996, Britisher Chris Boardman managed just over 35 miles in the same time. The winner of the 2016 Olympics marathon logged a time of just two hours and eight seconds, a full 80 minutes faster than the winner of the same race in 1904 (see footnote at end of story).

How have humans improved so much in such a short span of time?

It's certainly not evolution, given there's just one or two generations separating the old masters from the new. But that isn't to say there hasn't been artificial selection, with athletes (and their trainers) selecting the right bodies for the right sport. Improved understanding of human psychology and physiology are important, too: we better understand our limits, so we can push ourselves further. And of course, given you are reading this story on Ars Technica, you'd be right in assuming that technology has played a large role in improving human performance.

Transhumanism

At first glance these dramatic improvements seem impossible. Sure, better training has played a part. Likewise, increased global coverage through the Internet and larger financial incentives have undoubtedly resulted in sports becoming more serious and professional. But really, it's technology that has played the largest role.

The power of technology in sports is perhaps best illustrated by Jamaican runner Usain Bolt, the world's fastest man by quite some margin. The 100-metre sprint event, by dint of its simplicity, has been virtually identical since its inception: humans start, run really quickly, and then stop. Only three things have really changed: the introduction of starting blocks at the London Olympics in 1948, the surface of the track itself, and the runners' shoes.

Back in 1936 at the Berlin Olympics, Jesse Owens ran 100 metres in 10.3 seconds. That's a long way off Bolt's 9.58 seconds, but Owen's track surface was made of cinders, he wore heavier and less flexible leather shoes, and his "starting block" consisted of two holes in the cinders that he had to dig with a trowel. If Owens had used a real starting block, worn modern shoes, and run on a rubber-polyurethane surface, he would've been within a single stride of Bolt, according to a new biomechanical analysis.

The video below proves this point from the other direction, with a modern sprinter on a dirt track with no starting block.

Andre De Grasse vs. 1936 Olympic Champ Jesse Owens

A single stride is still something—Bolt covers 100 metres in just 41 steps!—but you can see that, with technology removed from the equation, peak human performance hasn't increased by that much over the years.

Sebastian Anthony
Sebastian is the editor of Ars Technica UK. He usually writes about low-level hardware, software, and transport, but it is emerging science and the future of technology that really get him excited. Emailsebastian@arstechnica.co.uk//Twitter@mrseb

10 Reader Comments

One thing to note about the hour record and Chris Boardman's attempt. The UCI recognised in 1997 that these newer track bikes that have an aerodynamic advantage have been put into a separate classification. The "UCI Hour Record" and the "Best Human Effort".

Then it was changed back in 2014 as nobody was trying to beat the record since Merckx being Merckx pretty much pushed themselves near to death and the only rider to beat it was a known doper.

One thing to note about the hour record and Chris Boardman's attempt. The UCI recognised in 1997 that these newer track bikes that have an aerodynamic advantage have been put into a separate classification. The "UCI Hour Record" and the "Best Human Effort".

Then it was changed back in 2014 as nobody was trying to beat the record since Merckx being Merckx pretty much pushed themselves near to death and the only rider to beat it was a known doper.

Doping is an interesting one; it's tied quite closely to technology, too. What is and isn't considered doping? Have people doped for years, but the policing tech (or policy) hasn't existed for us to stop people from doing it?

If you can squeeze 5% more out of your bike or shoes, is that the same thing as getting 5% more out of your own physiological system? etc etc...

Sport as public, paid competition is, and always has been IMO pointless. It doesn't prove anything except that humans are different, are born with different abilities, in different cultures with different life chances, facilities and training etc etc...

There is something intrinsically silly about all the technology involved in a game (it's not a sport) as golf... the pursuit of perfection by spending more than your opponent is a sort of 'pay-to-win' a la many a computer game. OTOH Life itself is 'pay-to-win' so at least it reflects reality in that sense.

Golf to me is a First World leisure activity that fairly reeks of "fiddling while Rome burns". I know it's nice to play in a bubble of safe inconsequentiality whilst there is suffering all around: I do it too, as does everyone else I know, but I can't help feeling it's all so... trivial.

Human beings are ridiculous creatures when it comes down to it. Posturing, aggressive apes without much thought of a long term future. The infantile worship of inanely gibbering sports 'celebs' is just one of a million reasons I think this.

Probably just depressed after reading the latest population statistics and reports of a 6th 'Great Extinction' event, sorry! :-(

As a keen, but sadly incompetent, golfer who has just started to play each week after nearly 20 yrs of 4-5 games a year, I have seen a step jump in tech compared to what I was used to. My new driver hits the ball 20-30 yards further than my 25 yr old driver (although some of that will be due to custom fit), I have tested new irons and those go 15-20 yrds further per club compared to my current 25 yr old irons (this is not necessarily a good thing - for me it often means 20 yards further off line!).

But it is the tech for training that appeals to me. Like all posters on ars, I love my tech, I have grown up with tech and as I result I am very comfortable with data. Taking lessons where there is data to back up what the pro is trying to get me to do is what I want.

One thing to note about the hour record and Chris Boardman's attempt. The UCI recognised in 1997 that these newer track bikes that have an aerodynamic advantage have been put into a separate classification. The "UCI Hour Record" and the "Best Human Effort".

Then it was changed back in 2014 as nobody was trying to beat the record since Merckx being Merckx pretty much pushed themselves near to death and the only rider to beat it was a known doper.

Doping is an interesting one; it's tied quite closely to technology, too. What is and isn't considered doping? Have people doped for years, but the policing tech (or policy) hasn't existed for us to stop people from doing it?

If you can squeeze 5% more out of your bike or shoes, is that the same thing as getting 5% more out of your own physiological system? etc etc...

The UCI in pro cycling have basically put a limit on the tech e.g. most pro riders would be using sub 6kg bike with lightweight disc brakes. The weight limit was put in the 80s as carbon fibre bikes weren't safe at the time and simply never lifted. The restriction of disc brakes is purely cosmetic i believe. There are other arbitrary restrictions as well.

In the book they go into detail the doping techniques. In Pantini's time it was mostly EPO and it was the first generation of EPO doping was quite dangerous e.g. Riders had to be woken up in the middle of the night if there heart rate got too low otherwise they were likely to have died.

In terms of cycling EPO is basically like Captain America's super soldier serum. If you look at when Floyd Landis "won" the tour they managed to pull back 30-40 seconds on a single stage in the Tour de France. These days if you have a 40 second lead that could win you the tour. There are several amateurs that ridden using EPO and they reported just not feeling that bad after riding 200 kms.

Sport as public, paid competition is, and always has been IMO pointless. It doesn't prove anything except that humans are different, are born with different abilities, in different cultures with different life chances, facilities and training etc etc...

But isn't that the point behind any kind of competition? To prove that you are better at something than someone else? It doesn't really matter why you're better, just that you are. Since you focus on sports, what about car races? Chess competitions? Do you think them less pointless?

The pay-to-win you mention is the reason why regulations even exist. If you can afford a 6 kg bike and your competitor is forced to use a 25 kg bike it's never a fair competition.

I'd say I'm fairly noncompetitive when it comes to sports. But sometimes, when I'm biking and I see another biker in front of me, yeah, I do feel the need to prove myself and overtake them. It's like a personal little triumph. I guess it's only natural that for some this isn't enough, and they need to prove they're better than everybody else. Hence, competitions.

And since competitions are entertaining (to some at least), a whole industry has grown around them. I'd personally rather sit on a bike myself than watch others race across the French Alps, but there's apparently more than enough people willing to watch.

Mention of the UCI and Boardman made me think of Graeme Obree and his "Old Faithful", and how he was screwed over an hour before the World Championship pursuit race in Italy in '93.

In fact, didn't Obree pioneer the superman position in this sport after the prior ban of his elbows tucked in position in '93? Pretty sure he won the World Championship in '95 before they banned that riding position as well. The sweetest part was Obree beating Boardman and all the expensive Lotus engineering and technology with something he built himself in his kitchen. Bit of an oversimplification but it was a real underdog moment.

Side note: I'm pretty sure he had just flown back from Italy in '93 to view and buy our house when we moved further East in Scotland. His wife loved the kitchen and indoors, and all he really cared about was the garage and that there was room in the back garden for his shed. Brilliant. I hope he's doing okay.

The UCI in pro cycling have basically put a limit on the tech e.g. most pro riders would be using sub 6kg bike with lightweight disc brakes. The weight limit was put in the 80s as carbon fibre bikes weren't safe at the time and simply never lifted. The restriction of disc brakes is purely cosmetic i believe. There are other arbitrary restrictions as well.

The disc brake restriction is not due to cosmetic restrictions. It is due to safety concerns (people getting cut with hot discs in crashes). In reality those are overblown and the UCI is allowing trials of disc brakes. In the current Tour de France Marcel Kittel is riding a bike with discs.

I don't think it's all positive. Sure, scientific inquiry has removed folklore, myth and superstitions. It also created a solid foundation regarding mental, physical, technical and tactical knowledge.

But step away from the glamour of elite athletes, and you'll see how technology is destroying decades of knowledge on how to train kids. Technological changes lead to changed techniques and physical requirements, which lead to changed tactics and mentality. Sure, organisations like FIFA can pay to have all their licensed coaches go through a refresher course, but poorer sports organisations?

Of course, not every sport is affected by it to the same degree, but mine happens to be. And while bad policy decisions played a huge role at the national level, it's the technological changes that are changing things at the club level. So after I got my entry-level coaching license, I quickly noticed the limitations of my acquired knowledge. It's only my willingness to question everything I learned combined with my tendency for rational thinking that allowed me to become a decent entry-level coach. Unfortunately, this story does not have a happy ending because all signals are pointing to my sport being in a death spiral. As a mostly amateur sport in my country, it simply is unable to adapt to technological changes and therefore unable to compete with sports that can.

There are a lot more restrictions on what bikes the UCI allows than just weight. Recumbent bikes are much more aerodynamic, but were banned in 1934.If you want to look at what is possible with bicycles without the uci rules, take a look at human powered vehicle records.With specially made, fully faired recumbents, the record is up to 57.44 miles for 1 hour standing start. The rider thinks that with the current bike, he can could add one or 2 miles if he is in perfect shape.